The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2016 [1].

The Last of Us[edit]

Nominator(s): – the editor formerly known as Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Last of Us is a 2013 video game, developed by Naughty Dog and published by Sony Computer Entertainment. The game's four-year development was significantly documented, which led to a wide anticipation for its release. It became one of the most acclaimed video games, earning over 240 Game of the Year awards. It is highly regarded as one of the greatest video games of all time. I've been working on this article a lot over the past year or so, and I now feel satisfied that it is well-written, and sufficiently meets the featured article criteria. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo[edit]

Here's what I see

Lead

Gameplay

There's just some initial comments for now. Will take a full look later, but so far, very good job. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Famous Hobo! I've gone through and fixed most of your concerns. However, I was confused as to what you mean by "Link long-ranged weapons", since I could find no article on the subject. In addition, the capitalisation of Hunters and Fireflies is also present in the source, which I followed. Let me know if I missed anything from above, and I look forward to seeing more comments. Thanks again! – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 02:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's continue. Just as a side note, I'm doing this during classes, so my editing schedule is rather all over the place. My apologies for such disjointed comments.

Plot

Development

Reception

Adaptations and possible sequel

Alright, that's it. All that's left is the refs section, which I'll take a look at soon, but I can tell you that ref 115 needs to be fixed, and ref 103 needs the publisher part fixed.

Thanks, Famous Hobo. I fixed your remaining issues. In regards to the reception of the kiss in Left Behind: this is explored in more detail in the article about the DLC, which is why it was only touched on briefly in here; if you think it should be removed, let me know. As for the references: I'm not sure why the URL for reference 115 isn't being accepted, but there's nothing wrong it as far as I can see (I don't think Wikipedia likes the "http://o.canada..." part). – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, sorry for a late response. So I did a small spotcheck of the refs, and everything came out good. The only remaining issue I have with the article is how Sarah and Tess are more or less thrown into the Gameplay section. When Sarah is mentioned as Joel's daughter, a casual reader will probably get confused, and ask why she doesn't play a big part in the game? Same goes for Tess, can you call to them at any point in the game for help? But they can be left if you want them. Other than that, everything else checks out. Very, very, nice article, it's pretty apparent just how much time and effort went into this, and after addressing all of my nagging issues, I can now safely give my Support. Congrats . Famous Hobo (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, Famous Hobo! I decided to remove any mention of Sarah and Tess from the Gameplay section altogether, as they're not really necessary, and only add confusion. I appreciate all of your comments. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 07:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

I'm sorry for coming late to this FAC, but as FamousHobo made a comprehensive review above, my review was slightly shortened due to various improvements already made. All in all, this is a great article! The work put into this has been impressive and admirable. No doubt I'll be support once all of the minor issues are out of the way. JAGUAR  17:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Jaguar! I've tried to address them all. Regarding Tom Mc Shea: that's how he spells his name, so that's how I wrote it in the article. Also, "Spike VGX" is the full name for the awards show. I should also let you know that the images aren't missing alt texts. Let me know if you have any remaining concerns. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing them! With all of my concerns addressed I'll be happy to support this now. I must have got confused with another website that uses pseudonyms. JAGUAR  16:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: Many thanks. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indopug[edit]

Comment since there's an article for the remaster, why mention its platform and release dates in the infobox here?—indopug (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug: You bring up a good point. I want to bring up some other examples: Halo: Combat Evolved lists Xbox 360 and Xbox One in the "Platform(s)" parameter in the infobox, but does not list it in the "Release date(s)", whereas The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time does not mention the 3DS version at all. I initially followed the structure of the Grand Theft Auto V article, back when it had a separate article for the re-release, but that's an unusual case, since the re-release was the same game with the same title, and The Last of Us Remastered is different in that respect. Do you think the PlayStation 4 version should be removed from the infobox entirely, or excluded from "Release date(s)" only? – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 13:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine if you don't remove entirely it from the infobox, but definitely do from the Release date(s), which lists far too many for an infobox. (I edit music articles, and album infoboxes strictly require the earliest release date only—I think the same should apply for video games too)—indopug (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more points:

Having a relook, I think the problems stem from the fact that Reception is so long. I believe its thirteen paragraphs can be cut down to five or six more concise ones (three for summarising reviews (whether it is any good or not?), and one each for sales and awards). A lot of the stuff (about violence and sexuality for starters) in Critical response should probably be split off into an Analysis/Themes section.—indopug (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, Indopug.
  • You say that that the infobox lists "far too many" release dates, but with video games it's fairly common to list multiple release dates like this. There's actually a discussion about this at the moment. Regardless, I have removed mention of the PS4 from the infobox.
  • I don't know if the word "game" is really overused in the article. Highlighting all instances of the word shows that it's used pretty sparingly in the first few sections, and then significantly in the Reception section, but this is simply because a lot of video game journalism publications use the word "game" in their name (Computer and Video Games, Eurogamer, Game Informer, GameSpot). Not to mention the 140 instances of the word in the references alone.
This is what I mean, even if you ignore the publication's names, there seems to be at least one 'game' every sentence (across Critical response). The solution is simple: replace it with "Last of Us" and "it" every now and then:

Many reviewers found the game's combat a refreshing difference from other games. Game Informer's Helgeson appreciated the vulnerability during fights,[64] while Kelly of Computer and Video Games enjoyed the variety in approaching the combat.[61] IGN's Moriarty felt that the game's crafting system assisted the combat, and that the latter contributed to the game's emotional value, adding that enemies feel "human".[66] Joystiq's Mitchell reiterated similar comments, stating that the combat "piles death upon death on Joel's hands".[67] Welsh of Eurogamer found the suspenseful and threatening encounters added positively to the gameplay.[63] Tom Mc Shea of GameSpot wrote that the game's artificial intelligence negatively affected the combat, with enemies often ignoring players' companions.[65]

—indopug (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the Awards section, I basically copied the formula that Grand Theft Auto V (an FA) uses for its Awards section. I understand your concern, but I don't know how I'd go about rectifying it.
Not a fan of that either, but at least there the list of items isn't as long as here (The sentence that begins "The game appeared on several year-end lists" has 23). As for rectifying it: aren't there more retrospective pieces on the game's awards out there? Ones that list out the numbers of Game of the Year, Best Actor, Best Writing etc awards it won? That way within a few sentences you could summarise the glut of awards.—indopug (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the length of Reception: I can't see any way of cutting down the reviews into three or four paragraphs, unless entire paragraphs are basically removed, and I'm not very enthusiastic about doing that.
  • I tried writing a Themes section in the past, but it was determined that the information would be better suited in Reception.
Thanks again. Let me know if you have more concerns. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 02:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: Any comments would be appreciated. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 00:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: Anything? – Rhain ☔ 14:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, if I were willing to put more of my time in FA reviewing as in previous years, I would've opposed this for failing 1a (since I don't any more, I'm just leaving feedback).
Good writing does not constitute sentences filled with long list of items (apart from the examples of this I pointed out above, I just saw the neverending "The game also topped the charts in the United States,[94] France,[95] Ireland,[96] Italy,[97] the Netherlands,[98] Sweden,[99] Finland,[99] Norway,[99] Denmark,[99] Spain,[100] and Japan.[101]"—why not just "The game also topped the charts in the United States, Japan and countries across Europe", or just "across the world"?).
To summarise: I do not believe what this article needs is just copyediting; a significant rewrite of Reception is needed.—indopug (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made some minor amendments to the article, per your suggestions. I don't believe a rewrite of Reception is needed; your only remaining problems seem to be Awards, and a sentence in Sales, which I don't personally see as problems and nobody else has mentioned it. However, it doesn't appear that you are going to either support or oppose this article, so I appreciate all of the comments and feedback that you have provided. – Rhain ☔ 08:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review from ProtoDrake[edit]

I have gone through the article using Checklinks and found no faults. But when I manually went through them, I spotted a few things that needed dealing with.

That's all I saw. When these concerns have been met, I'll have another look through to see if I missed anything. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ProtoDrake! I went through and fixed the inconsistencies, and replaced the GameTrailers URL. Also, since YouTube and GameTrailers can't be archived properly, I removed their archive URLs; I hope this is alright. Let me know if you see any other problems. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 00:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhain1999, thanks for the prompt response, spotted a couple of other things.

That's all I saw this time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ProtoDrake. I addressed the Edge and Joystiq issues. The main reason that some of the references are down in the table was to avoid an unreadable "Awards" section (if you take a look, it's hard to read even when restricted to using ref names). Would it be better to move these back into the main text, or to move all of the references down the table? Unless it can stay as it is, of course. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 09:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rhain1999, that's quite reasonable, and can remain as is. I can't see any further issues, so I'll give this a Pass on the source review. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ProtoDrake: Many thanks. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 10:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review from PresN[edit]

All of the images are done right, but... there's three gameplay shots. Most video game articles get by with one image; with such an important game I could see two, but one shot for visual design and two for gameplay mechanics is a bit much. The second gameplay image adds nothing except showing Ellie attacking someone, which is not, in my opinion, a big thing that needs a visual to explain. In any case: one of the screenshot images needs to go, preferably one of the gameplay ones. You need to either drop one or replace them both with a new single image. --PresN 20:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, PresN. The reason I wanted a second screenshot was to display how the artificial intelligence system is used in the game, and how Ellie will assist players in combat. If you feel as though this is unnecessary, I can remove the screenshot and re-position the existing one. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 23:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just don't think the Ellie screenshot adds enough to the article that isn't already covered by text or the other image, sorry. --PresN 00:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Not a problem; I understand, and I appreciate your feedback. I've made the changes. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 00:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review: Pass --PresN 01:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Muchas gracias. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 01:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JDC808[edit]

Sorry being a little late to the party. I haven't actually done any reviewing in awhile and I just happened to notice this on the list of FACs for WP:VG and thought I'd have a look.

First, before I begin reviewing, I always go through and do some copy-editing, especially if it's minor stuff. My thoughts are why tell you that you made a typo or need to add a word for grammatical sense when I can easily fix that? Anyways, I've gone through and copy-edited.

Critical Reception

Sales

Other

Thanks, JDC808. I appreciate your copy-editing.
  • I find that it makes sense to add the publication after every instance of the reviewer's name, since they're representing the publication. This has also been used on other FAs, such as Grand Theft Auto V, Seiken Densetsu 3 and Fez.
  • Added information about the demo to the development article.
  • I don't think a dedicated "Release" section is necessary for this article, especially considering that a lot of the information is summarised in the development article. The PS3 version launched worldwide on June 14, 2013; the PS4 release dates are covered in a footnote, and in its dedicated article.
– Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 01:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through the Critical Reception section, it got exhaustive continuously seeing "[last name] of [publication]" or a variant of it. They are representing the publication, but you already told us that when you first mentioned them, so it becomes very repetitive afterwards. There are other FAs that do as I'm suggesting.
  • In regards to a dedicated Release section, okay, and I wasn't suggesting putting all of the releases for the remastered version in it. --JDC808 ♫ 01:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JDC808: If I'm being honest, I much prefer to include the name of the publication upon each mention, but I can certainly remove them if you insist. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 01:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JDC808: Merci beaucoup. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 03:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

There a quite a few duplicate links in the article, which you can display by installing/invoking this script; pls run and check over if these dupes are really necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I found that none of them were necessary, so I removed them all. Thanks for linking the tool; that should be useful in the future. – Rhain ☔ 14:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks. Now, my apologies for not checking this sooner, but it doesn't appear to me that we've had a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, an extra hoop we ask those who haven't yet had a successful FAC (correct me if I'm wrong on that score) to jump through. Such a check can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Does ProtoDrake's source review not count? – Rhain ☔ 09:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We distinguish between "source reviews" for formatting and reliability, and "spotchecks of sources" for accurate use of cited material and avoidance of close paraphrasing (or outright plagiarism) -- unless I've misread it, ProtoDrake's review is mainly concerned with formatting, i.e. the former type of source-related review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I assumed this would be the case, thanks for replying. I'll request a spotcheck. – Rhain ☔ 10:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check by Cas Liber[edit]

Right, using this version in case references get moved around......

i.e. all looking ok. Was about to do Earwig's but timing out and am going to bed in a minute. Anyone is free to run it. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC) done it now. all clear apart from one false positive...so lookin' good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More